quote: An Anglican who refused to attend a Sunday seminar in the home of a classmate who disparaged Christians is suing the University of British Columbia, alleging professors and administrators discriminated against her on religious grounds.

posted 28 October 2002 04:52 PM
Hmm. I don't know about this. It doesn't say why she was referred to as "unstable." Frankly, if I were a professor and had a student - a mature student - sitting in my class refusing to speak and looking daggers at everyone every day, I'd be pretty pissed. And if her papers were very poorly argued, well, that's another strike against her. I can understand her not wanting to read her classmate's opinion about Christians getting stoned, but if she couldn't or wouldn't counter the arguments of the class logically, that's a problem.

There are two possibilities: one is that she was trying to censor the prof, disrupting the class and spewing pious dogma at him as if it was fact; the other is that the prof really does have issues with organised religion and spewed leftist/atheist generalisations as if they were facts. As someone who hates the religious right with the white-hot intensity of a thousand burning suns, I'm naturally inclined to believe the former, but there aren't enough facts in the Post article to prove it one way or the other.

posted 28 October 2002 06:02 PM
If you go to the second link, there is a link to the statement of claim her lawyer issued, which goes over the details of the case as she alleges them more clearly.

While I don't want to (totally) judge before I see UBC's official response, cause I'd like to see what they say, from what I have seen/heard, it does seem clear that both sides perhaps got a bit petty and out of hand, and that while the student does have some things to be pretty upset about (the prof not giving feedback on the draft paper she handed in, petty comments on her final paper, possibly even the location of the colloquim at the student's house, being misled about some of the parts of the appeal process), I think she's also trying to strengthen her case for widespread discrimination by throwing in every bad thing that ever happened to her, (someone making comment about how Stock which she takes as attack on all Christians, Sunday timing of colloqium, which the statement makes out to be antithetical to her beliefs, but she admits in the media that she has no problem with studying or shopping on Sunday, confusing not being encouraged from pursuing a complaint with being told one isn't possible) which seems a bad strategy as it can divert from the real issues.

I also find it really interesting that I have seen articles that discuss how the prof has set herself up as being against Christian morality as she testified in the Sharpe case (I believe it was for the artistic merit of his stories), which totally doesn't follow. From the info I have now, it seems that neither side was mature enough to deal with critiques of their worldviews in a reasonable and adult fashion.

quote: I also find it really interesting that I have seen articles that discuss how the prof has set herself up as being against Christian morality as she testified in the Sharpe case (I believe it was for the artistic merit of his stories), which totally doesn't follow.

What doesn't follow?

I think it might have been given as background to the Proff, letting readers know where she stands on issues of morality and freedom.

And I don't see how it follows that someone who believes in free speech is the above. She was not defending pedophilia, but the right of people to write down things from their heads that aren't real without being thrown in jail. Which I wholeheartedly support, cause otherwise I'd be in prison for threatening the Prime Minister and a whole lotta other people due to my journal.

If the Newswire story simply wanted to give background, it would have been easy to state something like "Weir has been at the centre of controversey before, when she testified as to the artistic merit of the stories of perdophile John Robin Sharpe", or far more neutral. But no, instead they implied she was the one on SNL ripping up pictures of the Pope*, or other activities that slam organized religion and the morality it proposes. Maybe she does these things, but testifying in favour of free speech has never been proven to me as anti-Christian, so for a news article to imply that it is "doesn't follow" IMHO.

* And I understand what Sinead was attempting to say, and I personally don't see that as against Christian morality as well, but as against institutions that protect themselves rather than children.

posted 28 October 2002 07:12 PM
Christianity in general has a favored position in Canadian society. Our constitution provides for government support of denominational schools, and there's a TV channel devoted *just* to the pronouncements of the Holy Rollers. (Vision TV) Our secular holidays include the Christian ones and are written into the law as statutory days off.

For someone to cry discrimination on the basis of being in the dominant religion in this country is rather unusual.

From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

posted 28 October 2002 11:20 PM
Very bizarre from an Anglican, the kind of thing one would expect from a fundamentalist... The Post makes me sick. There are so many REAL cases of persecution of Christians - in Pakistan, in Sudan... this sounds utterly absurd.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged

posted 29 October 2002 06:25 AM
I agree, I think Christians cry persecution way too much. It used to piss me off when I heard that in church all the time.

However...

In this case, the woman was expected to go to a seminar on a Sunday at the home of someone who claimed that Christians should be stoned, with a class full of people who tacitly accepted the ridicule of the Christian religion on the class discussion website, with gratuitously sacreligious and offensive posts that had nothing to do with the course material.

If someone expected a religious Jew to attend a seminar during Saturday sabbath at the home of a classmate who made jokes about industrial, people-sized ovens, with a group of students who made jokes about Moses fucking sheep or something like that, I'm sure you would see where the offense comes in.

According to the professor there were "extensive in-class discussions" as to the location and time of the seminar, discussions during which this student was present. That is the professor's excuse for not rescheduling the seminar.

However...

That would mean that the professor would have expected this person, who is obviously in the minority in her class and an object of ridicule in the class anyhow because of her religious beliefs, to stand up and state publicly that she didn't want to go to this student's house on a Sunday because of his or her offensive comments. Would we expect a Muslim to have to stand up in a room full of people who were hostile toward her religion and tell her religious objections to an entire class, or would we expect the professor to be sensitive to the climate in her class, and give her students an opportunity to voice personal concerns privately?

And I'm sorry, but having the option to hand in a discussion sheet later is not a suitable option. It's not okay to schedule a flexible seminar on the religious holiday of someone in the class and then tell the person they don't have to go. The classes should be scheduled for times and places where everyone can attend without compromising religious principles.

From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

Armchair psychology aside for a second, there's no doubt in my mind that things were said that shouldn't have been. The stoning thing is a bit much, not to mention historically inacurate-- astounding for a university student even one studying Derrida.

As for the scheduling of the seminar, it should be noted that the plaintiff wasn't into keeping the sabbath strictly for rest until she hoisted that particular chip on her shoulder post hoc.

I dunno, it just sounds like an acedemic pissing contest in search of relevance, to me.

I don't think she was persecuted, but on the other hand the unprofessionalism exhibited by the others is rather astounding.

quote:As for the scheduling of the seminar, it should be noted that the plaintiff wasn't into keeping the sabbath strictly for rest until she hoisted that particular chip on her shoulder post hoc.

That's true. But she even said that it wasn't just about it being a work-on-Sunday thing. It was the fact that she was expected to go to the home of a person who was hostile towards Christians, surrounded by a class of people who think it's fun to make gratuitously sacreligious jokes about Christianity, that she objected to doing on a Sunday. It's one thing to work on Sunday, it's another to surround yourself with people who show blatant disrespect and blasphemy for your religion on Sunday.

From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 29 October 2002 07:07 AM
I think her real complaint is over her marks, and how the appeal over them was handled. It seems instead of backing up her grade with reason, the professor resorted to ad-hominem attacks.

As for the anti-Christian stuff, I'll grant it was rude, and a better person that wrote the letter would have appologized for it by now. I suppose if one wanted to nit pick, it might be seen as "persecution", but really, it's just that. More rudness.

And, what are we going to do with rude people, nail them to a cross over it?

I think you're right about the marks. 73% isn't a bad mark for someone whose idea of problem solving was to sit in a small seminar class glowering at everyone rather than getting her problem resolved and then participating. I had to laugh when I saw that her whole appeal was for 6 lousy marks - not even the difference between an A and a B - both marks within the B range!

I also understand that there are those who make a career out of being offended at everything, and while the remarks WERE offensive, they probably could have been easily resolved had the woman had any people skills at all, or had she sincerely wanted any kind of reconciliation with the people in the class. She reminds me of one of those reverse-discrimination fanatics who go out of their way to find things to be offended at. She takes an English class where discussion of English colonialism is prominent, disagrees with the main premise of the professor's course that European colonialism has been responsible for many societal problems (and who can deny that the colonialism has been responsible for many injustices in North America?) and insists on continuing with the class anyhow in order to have something to feel persecuted about. Well, that's my impression, anyhow.

And from that perspective, I think this comment from the professor:

quote:"My impression is that in the end the seminar challenged everything you hold dear -- a situation which makes systematic inquiry very difficult," wrote Prof. Weir on an essay in March.

...is perfectly relevant. The impression I get is that this woman was going into the seminar with a closed mind. She didn't want to hear any criticism of European colonialism or of how institutionalized Christianity had a part to play in many of the injustices of the colonization of the Americas. As an Anglican, she is probably watching her church go through a hell of a lot of grief over the residential schools lawsuits - it's beyond me how anyone could believe that Christian and European institutions in North America haven't been responsible for some pretty terrible things that have happened in North America's colonial history, unless they are the type of person to put their hands over their ears singing "la la la la la la la!" and breaking only occasionally to whine about how they're so persecuted by left-wing criticism of their religion.

That said, though, I still say that if those statements about stoning Christians or blasphemous remarks about Mary and Jesus were made by the people in the class and tolerated by the professor, then that goes well past the bounds of acceptable criticism of Christian and European institutions.

As you say, Tommy, there has probably been childishness on both sides, and likely this woman is one of the professionally offended. But there has been real religious intolerance on the side of the class, and I think it should be addressed as well.

From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

Alix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2279

posted 29 October 2002 09:52 AM
Oh, this is bringing back painful memories of my "Women in Theatre" Class. We had one woman who was stridently anti-feminist, and, it seemed, took the course to be offended.

On the first day, we were talking about something, anything, in our lives that informed our perspective on gender. One woman in the class talked about how her 1st year Women's Studies class had changed her life. To which, this person went off the handle, said she had hated that course, and went on for about five minutes about why no one should have enjoyed the course.

She had previously gone by a shortened name, but now preferred her full name. When someone who had known her previously accidentally called her by the nickname, she was practically in tears about how nicknames "weren't proper."

She took everything as a personal attack on her, and I think most people in the class handled it very well, but it wasn't easy.

We later heard that on the last day of an acting classin the same term, she flew off the handle, and went on a tirade about how "nice girls don't do drama" - which provokes the question, why was she doing a medial in it?

Sorry for the thread drift. I do think that this was handled insensitively on all points, but why do some people take courses if they know they are going to disagree with everything being said? I ran into this with a lot of people in my "Religion in Canadian History" class.

posted 29 October 2002 10:06 AM
That's the thing. I don't doubt that rude things were said, but if she really could not think of anything more productive to do about them than sit and glower at people all through the class, she should have dropped it.

And even if you are religious, you'd have to live under a rock - and probably have one where your brain should be - to believe that European religious colonialism has never hurt people. The evidence is everywhere. If I had a classmate who thought that way, I'd be pretty merciless myself. People who think that way make me extremely angry.

The question is, what was she asking for? If she was putting forth logical, relevant arguments on behalf of religious groups and simply objected to the rude generalizations her classmates made and the professor's failure to stop them, that's one thing; if she seriously expected the professor and the other students to halt all critical discussion of Christianity and Christian evangelism, she doesn't deserve to be in university.

Nice to see how this thread has degenerated into a classic case of "blame the victim". Oh, she must be a professional whiner, she couldn't think of anything more productive to do than glower at students, how could she possibly be discriminated against, given that the "holy rollers" have their own tv station?

Does anybody seriously doubt that if she was a muslim, and a student in that class posted a message about stoning muslims, said student would no longer be enrolled in that university?

Need I remind anybody that it's the University's responsiblity to provide a learning enviroment free of discrimination? It isn't the student's responsiblity to figure out constructive things to do about it. Sure, she should have complained before now, but likely she would have run into the same dismissals of her concerns as we're seeing here. Maybe sitting in class and "glowering" is her natural response to a hostile enviroment.

I was just reading a post in the feminism forum (Conform or be cast out) about men who think they're the saviours of the earth, women and children who get all bent out of shape when their own convictions, ideas and lifestyles are questioned. It's the same thing here. We get a pretty clear cut case of, if not outright harrassment, at the very least hate speech directed against a religion, and the overwhelming response is to try and justify it. "Oh I'm not a bigot...it's only other people...like Christians...who are bigots. Nothing wrong with my thinking no sirreee."

quote: She was not defending pedophilia, but the right of people to write down things from their heads that aren't real without being thrown in jail. Which I wholeheartedly support, cause otherwise I'd be in prison for threatening the Prime Minister and a whole lotta other people due to my journal.

Sorry for the thread drift, I'll try to be brief. The the vast majority of the writings taken from Sharpe's home were not his own personal fantasies he wrote in his journal and kept to himself. The written smut filled nearly a dozen boxes and was shared online with other pedophiles. This was not Lolita or Romeo and Juliet.

Much of it was stories written in such a way that sex between children and adults is normalized, designed specifically to coerce children into performing sex acts with the pedophiles. Many of them included characters children like and trust, Big Bird, Barney, Fairytales, etc. They are tools used to rape children and produce child pornography. The remainder of the material was violent, graphic writings and comics. I won't get into the description.

Justice Shaw maintained that, however vile, since the writings had an introduction, body and conclusion, they had artistic merit.

I too defend freedom of expression, and I strongly recommend that you don't look to Sharpe as an example of that. He is not the poster boy of free speech. There is a big loophole in our criminal code when it comes to the written word, and child pornography, it wasn't worded carfully enough back in 1993 and Sharpe (his lawyer) took advantage of it.

posted 29 October 2002 11:32 AM
1. What was the prof doing scheduling a seminar on Sunday. When I went to UBC, classes were from Monday thru Friday. (In medical school they occasionally scheduled exams on Saturday which explains my lousy marks.)2. Assuming the prof wanted for some reason to schedule a class on Sunday and the class agreed to this, why schedule it at someone's house. Couldn't he have used his key to open the classroom.3. 25 years ago when I was at UBC they were starting to publish anti-callendars which gave a students-eye version of the course content and of the professor. I assume these are still being published. Unless this was a degree requirement, and was the only section that would fit her schedule, why did she even take the course.
From: Edmonton | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged

Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 29 October 2002 12:17 PM

quote:Does anybody seriously doubt that if she was a muslim, and a student in that class posted a message about stoning muslims, said student would no longer be enrolled in that university?

I think one has to consider context. If there were a rising Muslim political candidate in Canada expressing strongly anti-feminist, anti-multicultural and pro-corporate views, and said Muslim political candidate was widely seen as actually having a chance of taking over Parliament and passing laws that would push Canada towards a repressive, privatized theocracy, I'm not sure such a student would be thrown out. Like it or not, there is a difference between expressing such views of the dominant culture and expressing such views of a minority culture. I'm not saying it's okay, but there's a difference.

If she was a Muslim and expected everyone to say nice things about the Taliban and the governments that have women stoned to death, I'd have the same reaction. It might not be quite so strong, since I don't personally come under pressure to toe the Muslim line very often, but I would still want to smack her upside the head.

quote:Need I remind anybody that it's the University's responsiblity to provide a learning enviroment free of discrimination?

Discrimination, yes. It is not the university's responsibility, however, to protect people from exposure to ideas they might not like. We have not seen evidence that conclusively proves that this student's papers were marked unfairly. We have not seen evidence that she did not behave in an unstable manner. We haven't seen evidence that did anything but sit in the corner, glowering, and pipe up every often with a "My minister says you're all going to hell, nyah nyah nyah nyah." We know that the professor believes colonialism has caused a lot of huge problems in the world, that a few students said rude things about Christians and Christianity, that there was a seminar on a Sunday at one of those students' house, and that this woman felt she received too low a mark in the course. That's really about it.

Nonsense. We have anti-discrimination laws on the books and nowhere do they specify that context, or the relative position in society of the injured party be taken into consideration. Just another lame assed justification for anti religous bigotry if you ask me.

quote: If there were a rising Muslim political candidate in Canada expressing strongly anti-feminist, anti-multicultural and pro-corporate views, and said Muslim political candidate was widely seen as actually having a chance of taking over Parliament and passing laws that would push Canada towards a repressive, privatized theocracy

Maybe not in Canada, but there are rising Muslim political candidates around the world advocating these positions (maybe not the pro-corporate one). So does this make discrimination against Muslims okay then? What about a Muslim candidate or MP in Canada? Are we supposed to excuse discrimination against them on the grounds that Muslim politicians throughout the world are pushing repressive agendas? You state earlier in the thread that you hate the religous right. I assume you're talking not just about the religous right in Canada but in the US as well. Are you saying that this "context" of which you speak applies only to Canada?

If that's the case, then you're in the wrong again. What's the name of that rising Christian political candidate again? Seems to me that the Reform/Alliance has been on the downswing ever since Stockwell Day was elected leader. As far as actually having a chance to form the government, even the most ardent Alliance supporters don't see this as being possible, at least without a merger of the Tories and the Alliance.

quote: We haven't seen evidence that did anything but sit in the corner, glowering, and pipe up every often with a "My minister says you're all going to hell, nyah nyah nyah nyah."

We've seen evidence of this? Is that a direct quote? Or are you just projecting your prejudices against Christians onto this student?

quote: if she seriously expected the professor and the other students to halt all critical discussion of Christianity and Christian evangelism, she doesn't deserve to be in university.

If the professor of this class is unable to conduct a critical discussion of Christianity and Christian evangelism without allowing it to degenerate into an attack on the belief system itself and those who follow it, then I'd say he doesn't deserve to be in University either.

quote:We have anti-discrimination laws on the books and nowhere do they specify that context, or the relative position in society of the injured party be taken into consideration.

May I remind you that this was one offhanded remark made by a student? Hardly the same thing as institutionalized discrimination.

quote:Maybe not in Canada, but there are rising Muslim political candidates around the world advocating these positions (maybe not the pro-corporate one). So does this make discrimination against Muslims okay then?

Of course not; I'm talking about the Stockwell Day example. Muslim fundamentalist candidates don't have a real chance of having power over me in the near future. Christian fundamentalist candidates, on the other hand...

quote: What about a Muslim candidate or MP in Canada?

Depends on his/her agenda and whether s/he specifically ties it to his/her faith. Stockwell Day had a very right-wing agenda and it was explicitly tied to his faith.

quote:You state earlier in the thread that you hate the religous right. I assume you're talking not just about the religous right in Canada but in the US as well. Are you saying that this "context" of which you speak applies only to Canada?

I was thinking of Canada and the US, since the US is quite capable of dominating and quite inclined to dominate Canada.

quote:If that's the case, then you're in the wrong again. What's the name of that rising Christian political candidate again? Seems to me that the Reform/Alliance has been on the downswing ever since Stockwell Day was elected leader.

But when he *was* elected leader, it looked for a while like he had a good chance of winning the whole deal. That makes a difference.

quote: As far as actually having a chance to form the government, even the most ardent Alliance supporters don't see this as being possible, at least without a merger of the Tories and the Alliance.

Again, it was different a couple of years ago.

quote:[quote] We haven't seen evidence that did anything but sit in the corner, glowering, and pipe up every often with a "My minister says you're all going to hell, nyah nyah nyah nyah."

We've seen evidence of this?[/quote]

We know she sat in the corner glowering, which I personally think is childish. I was exaggerating the statement, certainly, but if her comments in class were basically of the "Christians are good people and they've never done anything wrong" variety, that makes a difference.

quote:If the professor of this class is unable to conduct a critical discussion of Christianity and Christian evangelism without allowing it to degenerate into an attack on the belief system itself and those who follow it, then I'd say he doesn't deserve to be in University either.

True. But we do not know that is the case. We know he objects to colonialism and has criticised aspects of Christian doctrine. That in itself does not constitute an attack.

quote: May I remind you that this was one offhanded remark made by a student? Hardly the same thing as institutionalized discrimination.

The case is not arguing that she is the victim of systemic or institutionalized discrimination. Rather, that she is the victim of discrimination by the professor of the class, due to her religous beliefs.

quote: But when he *was* elected leader, it looked for a while like he had a good chance of winning the whole deal. That makes a difference.

Yeah, that was a rough couple of weeks wasn't it?

quote: We know she sat in the corner glowering, which I personally think is childish.

You may think it's childish, but it is for some people, as I claimed earlier, the natural reaction when they feel they, or their beliefs and values are being attacked. Especially for women, who are still in a somewhat marginalized role in society. Go over to the feminist forum and read the opinions of some women who have experienced this. Many feminists support the idea of women only spaces precisely because they understand that the natural reaction of many women, when put into such a hostile situation, is to go silent.

quote:quote:The case is not arguing that she is the victim of systemic or institutionalized discrimination. Rather, that she is the victim of discrimination by the professor of the class, due to her religous beliefs.

Because the professor couldn't stop one student from shooting his/her mouth off?

quote:Yeah, that was a rough couple of weeks wasn't it?

You know what, yes, it was. And it's been a rough couple of years, what with Mister Faith-Based Initiatives in the White House and all.

quote:Especially for women, who are still in a somewhat marginalized role in society.

[sarcasm]Which, of course, has nothing to do with the efforts of Christian churches anywhere, ever.[/sarcasm]

quote:the natural reaction of many women, when put into such a hostile situation, is to go silent.

And then sue. Okay, but like I said, we haven't seen proof that it was that hostile. If it was always like that, I sympathise with her. If she's just upset because a few students said stupid things, that's different. Women may be intimidated by male-dominated environments (although this professor was female, which I think makes a difference), but is she a victim of discrimination, or is she a delicate little flower? We don't have enough evidence one way or the other.

posted 29 October 2002 03:25 PM
sheep arguing in favour of a harassment lawsuit? Good God there will be snowball fights in hell.

My two cents: The fact the plaintiff is a woman, is immaterial. Would the suit be less valid if she were a he? I don't think so.

As well, the suit hasn't a chance if reason prevails. Religion is a philosophy even if it does also represent deeply held beliefs and values. In any academic setting, one must be prepared to have his or her beliefs ridiculed. Certainly we see that happen here all the time and babble can't claim academic freedom which a university can.

Because she felt slighted is no reason to believe the professor can read her mind and know that she would feel uncomfortable at another student's home. She should have spoke up or even privately with the prof. And if she was not satisfied, well any number of students have missed seminars because of lesser reasons, i.e. inebreation, and still graduated.

All in all this is a nuisance suit. And I hope she is prepared to pay all costs if things do not go her way.

Put another way, would her suit get any attention at all, other than for novelty, if she were Wiccan or Unitarian?

8 (1) A person must not, without a bona fide and reasonable justification,

(a) deny to a person or class of persons any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public, or

(b) discriminate against a person or class of persons regarding any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public

because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex or sexual orientation of that person or class of persons.

It's not clear how a university professor could contravene this provision by behaving in the way the impugned one has (the only one that really applies).

However, this

quote:Nonsense. We have anti-discrimination laws on the books and nowhere do they specify that context, or the relative position in society of the injured party be taken into consideration.

...is not correct:

quote:Exemptions

41 If a charitable, philanthropic, educational, fraternal, religious or social organization or corporation that is not operated for profit has as a primary purpose the promotion of the interests and welfare of an identifiable group or class of persons characterized by a physical or mental disability or by a common race, religion, age, sex, marital status, political belief, colour, ancestry or place of origin, that organization or corporation must not be considered to be contravening this Code because it is granting a preference to members of the identifiable group or class of persons.

This doesn't apply in this case, of course, since UBC has no such exemption.

UBC has a discrimination policy based on the BC Human Rights code (actually, I had it all copied and pasted and everything, but then my pc crashed). Part of that policy is that it is the responsiblity of those in a supervisory position, like a prof, to ensure that the policy is followed by those they are responsible for, like their students. If the prof had reprimanded the student making the offensive remark, or at the very least, made it clear to the class that remarks of that nature are not tolerated, then she'd be pretty much in the clear.

I don't think your quote refuting my other point really works though. The exception makes provisions for groups who base membership on common ancestry, race, religion, etc. Doesn't matter whether that group is considered oppressed, or marginalized or what have you. That's why a group like the KKK, which denies membership to non whites, is allowable under the law, but a group like the Petroleum Club in Calgary, which denied (until fairly recently) membership to women is not.

posted 29 October 2002 07:37 PM
Sheep, I made the assumption about the woman being one of the professionally offended because I've encountered it in classes, and they generally act like that - always contradicting the professor on every little point, always getting offended over stuff, and if they don't get their way, sulking like a child.

I assumed it about her also because instead of trying to solve the problem she sat in the middle of each class visibly angry and glowering. That doesn't sound to me like the behaviour of a woman who was intimidated into silence.

Actually, Smith, it wasn't one student. There were apparently a series of offensive comments on the class website, and then one of the students said in class that Christians should be stoned like they were in the past, and apparently no one in the class, including the professor, had a problem with that. A responsible professor would have resolved the issue with a very stern rebuke to the person who said it, and a warning to the whole class that hate speech against people of any religion will not be tolerated in her class. Apparently this professor did not do that.

From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

posted 29 October 2002 09:03 PM
It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who has had to endure a post-secondary education that there are certain professors who wrap themselves in the flag of academic freedom to provide themselves with a layer of protection their theories could not possibly provide. It may be that a court will consider her claim. Of course, she will have to prove harm...

sheep:

quote:The exception makes provisions for groups who base membership on common ancestry, race, religion, etc. Doesn't matter whether that group is considered oppressed, or marginalized or what have you.

...actually, the exception is in place precisely to provide organizations that represent people who have experienced historic discrimination the ability to prefer members from those groups. An example might be the ability of the Vancouver Rape Relief Society to prefer women counsellors over men.

quote:That's why a group like the KKK, which denies membership to non whites, is allowable under the law, but a group like the Petroleum Club in Calgary, which denied (until fairly recently) membership to women is not.

Maybe so in Ontario, but I'm not aware of any KKK group in BC that has a s.41 exemption.

posted 29 October 2002 10:18 PM
Well, I'm rather disapointed that no one seemed to notice the rather eloquent Gore Vidalesque quip about Micheal Coren I laid down earlier.

My overblown ego aside, the English professor should have dealt with the student in an evidential way, instead of going on a character assasination type witchhunt against the student's character. That's where things went awry here, on U.B.C.'s part.

Second, I'm not sure what control the prof would have had over the e-mail. In her place (in her place? In her place I'd wear stilletoes and a tight leather skirt, and head to the nearest prison with a fist full of pardons...but that's just me) I would have ordered the author of the e-mail to do a two thousand word essay on the acts of persecution against Christians by both Nero and Diocletian.

posted 29 October 2002 10:50 PM
She isn't sueing under the BC Human Rights Act because you can only bring a complaint not asuit undder human rights legislation. she is suing under this BC Statute

quote: CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTION ACTRSBC 1996, CHAPTER 49

Her lawyer is a lawyer who has appeared for the Seventh Day Adventist Church which has a long litigation history. I have no sympathy for her because greed is a sin. To ask for such a large sum is un-Christian behaviour. She is asking all UBC students to do with less so she can be enriched. I think she should succeed in the suit and be awarded damages of one dollar as happens in libel suits when there has been a libel but it didn't do much damage.

Smith - I've seen different figures on the damage claim, with her lawyer saying they were asking for approximately 2% of UBCs budget, which I have seen estimated as between 17 and 18 million dollars.

And I just want to clear up a few factual issues in the discussion:

quote: Actually, it wasn't one student. There were apparently a series of offensive comments on the class website, and then one of the students said in class that Christians should be stoned like they were in the past, and apparently no one in the class, including the professor, had a problem with that.

The situation was actually as follows:

There was ONE student who on a list serve for the English department made a comment in the context of a discussion of Stockwell Day that Stock made him "wish for the time when Christians were stoned." Weir was NOT the moderator of this list serve, though one of the professors she asked to write a letter about the student appealing her grade was. Several other students on the list serve complained about this comment, but no public apology or reprimand was issued. I have seen no infomation on any private action regarding this. This incident took place A YEAR BEFORE the colloqium was scheduled at the home of the student who made the offensive comment.

In the class itself, the student bringing forward the suit makes no mention of innapropriate comments abotu Christianity, and none of the students in the class (aside from the guy who made the Stock comment) are named in the suit.

Personally, I agree that the student shouldnt have felt obliged to get up in class and say "I don't want to meet at the home of this guy, because he made comments that offended me," but when the class is trying to negotiate something like this, she does have a responsibility if she isn't comfortable with the decisions to either try to convince the class of another place/time, and since it really seems that place was the most important, to suggest alternate meeting spaces or at least shoot down this guys place, or if that doesn't work, to go privately to the prof and say "i'm not comfortable and this is why". Any prof worth their salt would then direct the class to another location, without mentioning why or who had the problem.

But she threw in the Sunday thing, which since she admits she doesn't have a problem with studying, shopping, etc. on SUnday (ie SHE DOESN'T KEEP THE SABBATH HOLY), then the rationale is both not relevant and hypocritical.

I don't see a pattern of discrimination here. I see one possibly offensive remark, for which the guy should have been reprimanded, and a series of misunderstandingss and petty squabbles between two childish people. The prof should face the consequences, including maybe losing her job, and the student should take the 73, and if this keeps up, be forced to pay the legal costs of the school for bringing forth a frivolous suit whose purpose is to hurt and embarass someone she doesn't like.

posted 30 October 2002 02:02 PM
It grabs headlines, but it also makes her look like a whiner and a fool. And the fact that she's suing a public university makes it even worse. Whether she expects it to actually happen or not, she's asking the public and the students of UBC, most of whom have probably never even seen her, to take a hit so she can nurse her wounded feelings on a beach in Bermuda for the rest of her life. And why? Because a few people said things she didn't like? Boo fucking hoo.

posted 30 October 2002 03:44 PM
Well, ideally, UBC would then go after the Prof (and her insurer, assuming she is a member of a professional association) for that money so that it wasn't foisted onto the backs of the students. That's how it's supposed to work, anyway.
From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 30 October 2002 03:55 PM

quote:or if that doesn't work, to go privately to the prof and say "i'm not comfortable and this is why". Any prof worth their salt would then direct the class to another location, without mentioning why or who had the problem.

Apparently that's exactly what she did - she complained to the prof privately, and the prof told her that the time and location couldn't be changed because the class had decided on it, and the woman had been with the class while the discussions were taking place.

That said, I think the amount she is suing for is stupid too. A lawsuit over 6 marks and a stupid comment is frivolous in the extreme. But she WAS discriminated against because of her religion.

From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

swirrlygrrl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2170

posted 30 October 2002 05:17 PM
Michelle -

I've re-read your above posts, and I'm not sure I follow your argument that the student has faced discrimination based on her religion. I'm sorry if I'm being a bit thick on this, but would you mind posting again to explain why you see this as so?

And, yes, the statement of claim says that she requested the seminar be changed, but she didn't ask that the location be changed (which I see as the "real" important part) but that the DATE and LOCATION be changed, in other words that the teacher overrule all the decisions made by the class, even though the student has no objection normally to studying and shopping on Sunday's, and which very likely would have the impact of excluding other people. The request, when made that way, seems petty and I don't think the teacher should have honoured it. Though she should have risen above and tried to work out the problem.

Anyhoo, I'm really looking forward to hearing the other side of this story.

posted 30 October 2002 07:05 PM
17 million bucks? Fuck. Off. The judge should throw this case outta court so hard it bounces off Granville Street and lands in the muck somewhere in Delta.

He should then slap that lady a $200 fine for bringing a frivolous lawsuit.

From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 30 October 2002 08:47 PM
Yeah, I have to wonder how her lawyer could type that out in the claim and actually submit it with a straight face. Whoever it is, they must not read the trades much. Perhaps they're getting their numbers from american TV.
From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

David Kyle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1530

posted 31 October 2002 10:18 PM
"Turn the other cheek", come to mind. So much for her understanding of the teachings of the bible. She should never have sued.
From: canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged

Weakerthan
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3286

posted 04 November 2002 09:48 PM
The case is a lot more complicated when you look at it up close and think about it in terms of being a freedom-of-speech issue. Basically, I think the student's in the wrong and the prof's in the right--that is, Weir has the right to conduct her class in the way she sees fit. She's got to have that right for the academy to work, in my view.

BUT what's fascinating is of course that Weir was a pioneer in the great frontier of political correctness. It's because of the very language and ethical landscape she helped cultivate that this student is able to bring a complaint of this nature against her.

Also, here's a bit of insider info: Weir is a notoriously awful teacher, routinely dividing her students up into categories of "with" and "against," and those she's not on board with she systematically shuts down in the classroom by ingoring, sniping, and disagreeing with every point they make. It's not a pretty sight and it's left a lot of grad students embittered and, in some cases, fucked academically. If you come to UBC looking to study literary theory and Weir doesn't like you, there's no one else for you to study with.

Again, this is a fascinating contradiction considering she's a pioneer of free speech, politically correct "inclusive" language and so forth.

BUT WHAT'S REALLY INTERESTING: The English grad student listserv was started by the graduate students and is maintained by grad students. That is to say, the English department's administration has absolutely nothing to do with it. Yet when grad students started discussing the law suit online, an edict came down from the departmental powers-that-be stating they were not to discuss these matters.

Where exactly *is* the free-speech in all this? As always: in the mouths of those who hold the power it would seem.

posted 23 January 2006 04:48 PM
Boy, my heart sure goes out to this poor, downtrodden victim. How dare her classmates ridicule her for believing in an omniscient, invisible, all-powerful superhero who lives in space! Why, there's just no place in academia for the criticism of unfounded and unproven hunches! If I want to believe in something that I cannot prove, show, demonstrate or reproduce then that's my business, and if a bunch of academics want to laugh at that then I want approximately 500 year's worth of wages for it! Religious types never ever sneer at Godless Heathens, so why should the shoe be on the other foot?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged

S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 23 January 2006 04:48 PM

quote:Originally posted by Michelle:In this case, the woman was expected to go to a seminar on a Sunday at the home of someone who claimed that Christians should be stoned...

posted 23 January 2006 05:39 PM
I think you folks would be singing a different tune if it were a Muslim who was treated like this.

The professor not only did not rebuke the student who posted that Christians should be stoned on the class listserv, but then he allowed seminars to be scheduled at this person's place, and refused to change it despite being told privately by this student that he or she was uncomfortable meeting there due to the blatantly hateful remarks by the host student.

17 million? No, I think that's ridiculous. A recognition that you can't get away with letting your students get away with hateful remarks aimed at a group based on their religion? More than reasonable.

If he'd just been ridiculing the religious beliefs, I'd be fine with that. Claiming that Christians should be stoned is something else entirely.

From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 January 2006 05:41 PM
How about forcing feminist women to attend a weekend seminar at the home of a pro-lifer who wrote on the class listserv that abortionists deserve to be shot dead? Hardeeharhar, can't they take a joke? A criticism of their political beliefs about abortion?

[ 23 January 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]

From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged

Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 23 January 2006 05:50 PM
Or how about a laissez-faire Capitalist forced to sit next to some spotty anarchist wearing an "Eat the Rich" t-shirt? Would we find that unacceptable, what with the calls to cannibalism and all?

I just can't see any real incitement to violence in any of this. If I did then I'd have to see it differently.

posted 23 January 2006 05:51 PM
The story made me think of what it was like when I went to high school in the city after growing up on the reserve ... the only native in the class. You don't have to be overly sensitive to feel hostility when the majority is against you. What was the prof thinking, scheduling a seminar at the house of a student openly hostile to another student?

I don't know if it's lawsuit material, but the prof should have offered an apology, and probably have been reprimanded by the university.

posted 24 January 2006 02:57 PM
funny, this was for a lorraine wier course -

lorraine weir is probably the most hard core progressive feminist that u.b.c has.

i actually spoke with her at length about all this back in 2003, and she made it pretty clear to me that this woman was completely off of her rocker. she admitted that she wasn't even a christian while her complaint was working its way through the u.b.c. administrative channels.

think rachel marsden.

it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with a mental illness and straight up harrassment.